Orioles falling behind?

Buster Olney reported that the likelihood of free agent 1B Mark Teixeira signing with the Baltimore Orioles is slim, unless the O's increase their offer. He says the other teams pursuing Teixeira "have gone beyond Baltimore's proposal for the slugging first baseman."

According to Olney's column, the Orioles offer is believed to be for 7 years and $150 million. The Nationals' offer is reportedly 8 years for $160 million. Olney starts his column with the following sentence: "Unless free agent Mark Teixeira is willing to give the Orioles a major hometown discount, it does not appear he will be playing in Baltimore."

What? Taking the offer from the Orioles instead of the Nationals (or any other team - Red Sox, Angels, etc. - with a similar 8 year deal) is not giving Baltimore a "major hometown discount". As long as Teixeira is worth $10 million dollars seven years from now, it's the same amount of money. And, because he's only 28 and plays 1B, his value is likely to remain high into his late 30's. In all likelihood, he'd actually be better off financially (in the short term and the long term) taking $150 over 7 ($21.4 million per year) instead of $160 over 8 ($20 million per year).

Playoffs?

So, you want an 8-team playoff in college football. Who are your 8? The top 8 in the BCS, Avg. computer rankings, and polls are:
BCS Computers AP Coaches Harris
OU OU UF OU UF
UF UT OU UF OU
UT UF UT UT UT
Ala TTU Ala Ala(T-4) Ala
USC Utah USC USC(T-4) USC
Utah Ala PSU PSU PSU
TTU USC Utah Utah Utah
PSU BSU TTU TTU TTU

The polls like Penn State (as #6), while the computers think Boise State (#8, w/PSU at #9) is deserving of a top 8 spot. Seven choices (OU, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah and Texas Tech) are consensus selections.

But, are you really going to keep out an undefeated team (Boise State). And, if they are included, who goes? Who's the better team: Texas Tech or Penn State? The computers think Texas Tech by a wide margin (remember, Tech is #2 in one ranking and 3rd in two others, while Penn State ranges from 8th to 10th in the rankings). What about participation from the ACC and/or Big East? If you go to the top 16, you'll surely include the top 8 ... but there will be a debate about who should be in and who should be out as you pick 14, 15, 16. And, if you go to 4, who are your top 4 this year? Is USC in or out? If, they're in, then, who's out?

We need more separation of teams at the top ... and we need more games between teams at the top to separate them. We don't "need" a playoff. It might be fun ... but we "need" to improve the regular season whether a playoff is implemented or not!

Head-to-head

I recently read an article that gave the UT v. OU score and said the game wasn't as close as the score indicated. Really? Anyway, I'm not going to get into that. And, I'm not going to debate the merits of Texas or Oklahoma. But, I am going to say that head-to-head shouldn't be the be-all/end-all that it is regarded to be.

If Team A beats Team B head-to-head, what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? Does it mean that Team A is better than Team B? UT fans would argue that, but I think it's hard for Browns fans to argue that Cleveland is better than the NY Giants based on the MNF game earlier this season (the Giants only loss before Sunday). Utah beat TCU this year to win the MWC. But, is Utah better than TCU? I'm not sure. It was a close game at Utah. What if that game had been in Fort Worth? Would Boise State be in a BCS bowl? Would a one-loss TCU team (with the only blemish being at OU) be in a BCS game as a one-loss "mid-major"?

Many things go into a head-to-head match-up. Maybe, one team just doesn't match up well against another team. Maybe home field advantage played a small role. Perhaps, weather conditions favored one side over the other. It's even conceivable that a bad call swayed the outcome to some extent. Or, there may have been injuries that prevented a team from being 100% in that game, or maybe subsequent injuries hurt a previously powerful team. If Tim Tebow broke his leg on the last play of the SEC Championship, would people still be voting UF #1? Would they still vote them ahead of Alabama?

In the case of three teams that play, each ending with one win and one loss, we have a "rock, paper, scissors" situation. If Team A beats Team B but loses to Team C, while Team B beat Team C, what then? Rock smashes scissors. But, paper covers rock ... and scissors cut paper. So, which is best? What happens if you introduce "brick" to the trio of "rock, paper, scissors". Well, obviously, scissors are out of luck. However, paper benefits. What if we introduce "cardboard"? Or "box-cutters"?

The "best" teams often lose, especially when confronted with enough opponents/contests. MJ's Bulls lost games. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl last year. The Cowboys lost to the Rams this year. Does that mean that the Rams are better than the Cowboys? Obviously, it would be absurd to say that the Rams were a better team than the Cowboys. The idea that head-to-head isn't the ultimate trump card extends to situations where teams only lose a few games as well, especially when teams don't play most of the teams. If you get into A beat B and C beat D and E beat F and C beat A but lost to Q and this and that, you won't be able to come up with a consensus winner. There's a reason why they came up with computer rankings (computers are better at processing large amounts of data than human's are) ... and there is a reason OU is #1 in all 6 of the computer rankings, while four different teams (Texas, Florida, Texas Tech and Utah) all hold down the #2 spot in at least one computer's rankings.

Attention KH: It was the computers

Kirk Herbstreit thinks Texas should represent the Big 12 South in KC on Saturday against Missouri. He thinks the head-to-head win in the Red River Shootout/Rivalry should be the deciding factor. That's fine. That's his opinion.

Kirk Herbstreit might be my favorite CFB analyst. However, I can't help but call him out for saying tonight that he thinks the "style" points of recent weeks led to the Sooners overtaking the Longhorns in the BCS rankings. He also mentioned the Sooners playing in prime time games as a reason that OU might have edged out Texas.

I think Texas is good. I think OU is slightly better. But, I'd love to see more good football to figure it out on the field. If you don't now what I'm talking about, please see my previous CFB posts. But, I think the system did everyone a favor - in the long run - by allowing the Sooners to go to KC instead of the Longhorns. Obviously, Texas isn't happy about it now.

But, OU gained ground on the Longhorns because they kept winning and the Longhorns lost to Texas Tech. And, after everything was said and done, OU had better wins than the UT. That's why the computers like OU. UT ended the year slightly ahead of OU in the combined poll portions of the BCS (just one point behind in the coaches' poll and six ahead in the Harris - although the Harris poll has about twice as many total points ... so the difference between the teams was about three times as high in the Harris as in the coaches', rather than 6 ... but, I digress). But, OU gained ground in the computers because TCU and Cincinnati moved up, while Missouri dropped significantly following the loss to KU. Plus, OU played at OSU, a very solid team that Texas had already played.

OU: 7. Texas Tech (65-21), 11. TCU (35-10), 13. Cincy (52-26), at 14. OSU (61-41)
UT: 2. OU (45-35), 14. OSU (28-24), 20. Missouri (56-31).

There is a reason the computers like OU, and I don't think it's style points and prime time games. It's because OU played tougher teams. And, the difference was the non-conference schedule. While Rice is contending in C-USA, they aren't an elite team. FAU is 6-6 and was just 4-3 in the Sun Belt. Arkansas and UTEP were both 5-7.

OU played Chattanooga, which is a total joke. And, UW ended up having a tough year, although they did play BYU tough with Jake Locker. The only full games Locker played were against Oregon, OU and BYU. But, the beef of the non-conference schedule for OU were, obviously, the games against TCU and Cincinnati. TCU was close to running the table in the MWC (they had a lead late at Utah) and Cincy won the Big East. Those two teams ended up being ranked higher than the second best team that Texas beat (OSU - who also lost to OU).

I think the pollsters were torn. OU lost head-to-head to Texas, but the Sooners lost first. People always say that losses early aren't as bad as losses late in the season. OU was impressive late in the season, but Texas had a pretty good showing against A&M to end the year as well. Well, obviously, the pollsters were torn. But, if you look at the computers, you see the key.

You often hear fight commentators say "You can't leave it in the hands of the judges ... if you don't finish the fight, anything can happen." Well, the same thing applies to CFB. Texas could round up tougher games (undoubtedly, so could OU). When no one on your non-conference schedule ends up in the top 25 at the end of the season and your competition has two non-conference wins over top 15 teams, who do you think the computers will prefer? I think this is a good precedent and I hope it creates more competitive non-conference games in the future.

But, I'm also a realist. I realize that coaches are walking the line trying to minimize the chance of losing while maximizing their status in the rankings. You want to play good teams, as long as you aren't going to lose the games ... because losses are, generally, really bad in CFB. So, this year went to OU. I think that is reasonable the way everything turned out.

Of course, part of the problem for coaches is that you never know how things will turn out. LSU, Auburn, WVU and Clemson were all mulling around the top 10 when the season began. Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee, and South Florida were all in the top 20. TCU and Cincy were "Others receiving votes".

And, this inability to forecast into the future is all the more reason to move to a system like the one I have advocated previously, where the non-conference games are systematically scheduled after the conference season to figure out where teams actually fall.

P.S. Jesse Palmer is on talking about "style points", "prime time television" and "losing early." I'd love to see the computer formulas ... but I'm guessing (pretty sure, actually) prime time TV isn't among the parameters.

Baseball Economics

Brewers GM Doug Melvin might be a very intelligent man, but I couldn't help but cringe when I read one of his comments on the NY Yankees' pursuit of CC Sabathia:

“It sounds like they’re overbidding. If the speculation is true that we’ve offered CC $100 million, why would you offer $140 million? Why wouldn’t you offer $110 million?”

Speculation was that the Brewers offered CC $100 million over 5 years. The Yankees' offer was a six-year deal. Making a 6-year, $110 million offer shouldn't sway Sabathia toward the pinstripes. That's less per year than the offer from the Brewers! Melvin might have been much better off giving a per year figure, perhaps stating that the Yankees don't need to offer $23.3 million per year when the Brewers' offer was for a meager $20 million per.

I see where Melvin is coming from, but I'm not sure he has enough perspective on this issue. His point is that the Yankees are outbidding the other teams by more than a few million dollars. But, does he fail to realize that the Yankees might have to do that to get Sabathia?

The Yankees are an attractive location for players who want to win championships, because the team is always in the mix. Sure, they haven't won the World Series lately (was the last time really the 2000 Subway Series against the Mets?), but they have the resources, and management desire, to try to win every year.

However, there are also a lot of issues working against them, especially with Sabathia. First, not everyone wants to be in the circus that is associated with being a member of the NY Yankees. Sabathia seems content to play in smaller markets with a little less spotlight. And, he's from the left coast ... so location, location, location isn't working for the Yanks. Additionally, Sabathia is a good hitter. If he goes back to the AL, he gives up most of his opportunities at the dish and has to pitch to the opposing DH's.

So, maybe the Yankees feel that they need to give Sabathia $3 million extra per year and a sixth year to get him to sign on for 6 years in NYC pitching in the AL. Maybe it's enough ... maybe it's not. But, I think the Yankees really want Sabathia and are willing to overspend a little bit for the guy they want - and if the Brewers are willing to go $20 million per, I don't really think the Yankees are overspending.

You can tie in the NFL? Really?

Apparently, Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb didn't know you could tie in the NFL:

"I've never been part of a tie. I never even knew it was in the rule book. I was looking forward to getting the opportunity to get out there and try to drive to win the game. But unfortunately with the rules, we settled with a tie."

I was flabbergasted when I heard this. I'm not sure when I first became aware of that particular NFL rule, but I'm sure I had yet to finish elementary school at the time. For a QB in the NFL to not know the rule is incredible, and not in a good way.

And, the relative infrequency of this result leads me to believe that the current system is fine. If you don't score in the 15-minute period, you don't really deserve to win. The Eagles had three full possessions in OT: (1) 4 plays, 19 yards, (5) 5 plays, 9 yards and (3) 3 plays, 9 yards. The Eagles turned the ball over 4 times and converted just 3 of 18 3rd downs (although, they were 1 for 1 on 4th down). They averaged less than 6 yards per pass and less than 4 yards per rush against the previously 1-8 Bengals.

If you want to argue that it's not fair if you don't get a chance to play offense in OT, fine, I'll listen. But, if you want to argue that you should just keep playing ... no way. Ties are a part of football. There isn't any reason they shouldn't be. It's not inequitable to only give teams 15 extra minutes to score. Get a few first downs and get in FG position!

All that being said, this was an awful result for the Eagles. They'd be tied with the Redskins and Cowboys at 6-4 if they had defeated the Bengals. Oops. Now, they're a half game back. They're 1.5 back of the Bucs and 0.5 back of the Falcons from the NFC South. So, rather than being 1 game back of one team and tied with 3 others in the NFC Wild Card race, they now sit in 5th place in the race for 2 spots.

I disagree with President-Elect Obama

Apparently, Barack Obama doesn't read "There's a Catch." In a recent interview, he said "We should be creating a playoff system. 8 teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion, it would add three extra weeks to the season - you could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this ..."

And, while I don't like the BCS, I've heard a lot of serious fans of college football say that they don't want a playoff because it would devalue the regular season. I don't agree with them, but they're out there.

If Obama wants to sacrifice regular season games to implement a playoff, non-conference games will be cut. This will further reduce the information we have about which conference(s) are the best. Right now, Pac-10 teams play 3 non-conference games. If you cut two games out of the regular season to implement a playoff, you're left with 1 non-conference game. There will be even fewer chances to lose during the regular season under that scenario, so teams will be even less likely to schedule difficult non-conference game. In addition, they'll probably play the non-conference game first in their schedule to prep for conference play. While Ohio State has been playing huge non-conference games to kick off the season lately, not many other teams want to do that. Teams with just eight conference games would be left with just two non-conference games. What are the chances that Brown, Meyer, Miles, Saban, Stoops, etc. schedule top 10 foes for those contests?

It isn't as easy as just taking 8 teams. How do you pick the 8 teams? Right now, Utah, Boise State and Ball State are all undefeated in non-BCS conferences. We could have a three-way tie for 1st place in the Big 12 South at the end of the season. It's possible that USC will not win the Pac-10, despite having just one loss and being ranked in the top 8.

If you take the champs from the 6 BCS conferences and then the next two highest ranked teams, it's unlikely any of the non-BCS undefeateds would make the field of 8. Barring anything drastic (Tech getting steamrolled in Norman AND the Sooners getting taken out by the Cowboys in Stillwater), at least two of the Big 12 South teams will be in the top 6 at the end of the season. Also, if Florida beats Alabama in the SEC Championship game, those two will still both be ahead of the highest ranked non-BCS team, Utah. So, the two non-champs would be from the SEC and Big 12.

I don't like Obama's idea, obviously, and these are a few of the reasons:
1. It increases the penalty for any loss
2. We have even less information about how Conference X compares to Conference Y
3. Is it reasonable to expect some teams to go to bowls while others are playing in a playoff? And, if you lose in the first or second round of the playoffs, do you still get to go to a New Year's Day bowl?
4. With even less information about how the conferences compare, how do you pick the top 8 teams? What if 5 or 6 of the top 8 are from two conferences?

Sure, the current system is flawed, but the changes that need to occur aren't trivial.

The Tromble Plan for CFB

We're headed for another disaster with the BCS. Penn State appears to be headed for an undefeated season, which should allow them to get into the national title game without being one of the two best teams in the country. And, we might have a scenario where the other team in the national title game is taken from a one-loss crew including USC, Texas, OU/Texas Tech/OK State, Alabama, Florida. And, we could have multiple undefeateds from the non-BCS conferences: Boise State, Utah and Ball State that would be left out.

I've seen a clip of Barack Obama on ESPN multiple times today (the same clip, multiple times) calling for an 8-team playoff. My question is: which 8 teams get to play?

For kicks, I'm going to play out the rest of the season in a reasonable manner.
SEC: Alabama and Florida win out the rest of the regular season, but UF takes down the Crimson Tide in the SEC Championship game. Alabama and Florida each have 1 loss on the season.
Big 10: Penn State continues on undefeated.
Pac 10: USC rolls the remainder of the season, winning the conference with just the loss to Oregon State.
Big 12: Texas wins out. Texas Tech beats OK State and loses at OU. But, OU loses to OK State in Stillwater. So, Texas and Texas Tech have one loss each, with Tech having the tie-breaker of head to head. OU and OSU each have two losses. I set it up this way because I didn't want the worst-case scenario. It's entirely possible that we could have three teams from the Big 12 South with just one loss at the end of the year, but let's not go there for now.
ACC and Big East: Someone wins each of those conferences with just 2 losses on the season, let's call it WVU and Florida State.
Other conferences: TCU takes out Utah, but Utah beats BYU. TCU and Utah each finish the season with one loss (TCU's only loss is at OU early in the season). Boise State and Ball State run the table.

If you want an 8-team playoff with all undefeateds and the winners of the 6 "BCS" Conferences, you'd get the following field:
Ball State
Boise State
Florida
Florida State
Penn State
Texas Tech (via tie-breaker over Texas, presuming a win over the Big 12 North champ)
USC
WVU

If you leave out Ball State and Boise State, you could insert Texas and Alabama. But, is it fair to leave out undefeated teams?

We don't need a playoff added on to the current format, we need a better system for figuring out who the best teams are!

Who was the best team in the NFL last year? It was the Patriots. They didn't win the Super Bowl, but they were the best team. Does the best team in college basketball usually win the national title? That's debatable, but the 64-team single elimination tourney isn't the best way to have the best team win. The larger the single-elimination tournament, the more likely that the best team will lose to a team they shouldn't lose to. Maybe you hit a bad match-up ... maybe your team has a bad game ... maybe you get shafted by the refs ... who knows? The solution is a systematic way to determine who the best two teams are ... then having them play in the national title game, winner take all. How do you determine the two best teams? Well, you get intelligent people to write code that analyzes results from the entire season to rank teams.

The current system doesn't work because there aren't enough meaningful results. And, it's going to take a governing body controlling scheduling to fix the problem. Here's how you do it.

1. Have teams play two pre-season games to get ready for the season schedule.
2. The season schedule starts with conference play, with 8 games for most teams over 9 weeks (teams in conferences with 10 (or 11) teams would play all 9 weeks).
3. Conference championships would be the next week, plus a meeting between the winners of the Big 10 and Pac 10 (site rotating between the Rose Bowl and some Big 10 country site).
4. Also, during conference championship week, the non-conference schedule would start for teams that aren't in conference title games. Then, for the rest of the season (3 or 4 more games), teams would continue to be matched up.
5. At the end of the season, the rankings would list teams from 1-nt, where nt is the number of teams, whatever it happens to be that year. The top x will go to bowls (x is equal to 2 times the number of bowls that year). There are two options for the championship: i) the top 2 teams play for the national title or ii) the top 4 play a single elimination tourney with the national title game being played the week between the NFL Conference Finals and the Super Bowl.

How does the scheduling work? Has everyone out there taken the GRE? If the first math question is 1+1= ? ... and you answer 2, then you'll get a tougher question. If you get it wrong, well ... uh oh. Perhaps the next question is: 2+x=8 ... you say x=6 and get a more difficult question. The third question is x^2=4. If you say that x=2, you get it wrong (x can be either 2 or -2) and you get an easier question for the next one. In this way, the system can more accurately gauge your actual aptitude than with a set bank of questions that everyone answers. It would take some flexibility by fans, but I'm sure people would make accommodations on short notice for these games. Perhaps, you could even lock in certain weeks that were guaranteed home games, although the opponent would be up in the air. I would start by suggesting that match-ups are scheduled between 2-3 weeks in advance, based on the rankings at that point. The previous year's rankings could be used to help create the early season rankings, because non-conference results will be non-existent.

We think the Big 12 is the best conference, but we don't really know. Maybe it's the SEC. Wouldn't it be nice is we could line up the following set of games one weekend to help us figure things out (kind of like the ACC-Big 10 challenge in BB):
Texas v. Florida
TTech v. Alabama
OU v. Georgia
OK State v. LSU
Missouri v. Mississippi
Kansas v. Vandy
Nebraska v. South Carolina
A&M v. Auburn
K-State v. Kentucky
CU v. Arkansas
Baylor v. Miss. State
Iowa State. v. Tennessee

Based on the results of the games, the rankings would be reshuffled. And, by having lots of meaningful results, we could sift through the teams and actually figure out who the best teams are.

Or, we can continue to watch Alabama play Arkansas State and OU host Chattanooga. And, we'd be able to work in Boise State, TCU, Utah, BYU, and Ball State against strong teams from "BCS" conferences to see if they are legit or not. Tulsa was undefeated until they lost (barely) to Arkansas last week. Who else did Tulsa beat in non-conference games: North Texas, New Mexico and Central Arkansas. If Tulsa had beat Arkansas and finished undefeated, would we really know if they were any good?

NFL Replay Challenge

I heard Peter King is saying that the NFL might change the booth review to the last 5 minutes (from the last two minutes). This minor change would help prevent teams who have used all their timeouts from getting hosed at the end of games (see Falcons v. Eagles last week).

Here's a suggestion for the NFL: don't force teams to use a timeout for a challenge. Give teams an option. If they have a timeout, they can forfeit it in the event of a bad challenge. An alternative is the teams are penalized 10 yards if they lose their challenge. Teams can challenge as much as they want, but each time they lose one, it costs them. Don't limit the challenges, just make the penalty for losing them sufficient to discourage excessive challenging. The current system forces coaches to consider the likelihood that the refs will screw up later in the game. That shouldn't be the case ... so change the rule!

What exactly is an "opportunity"?

People are still harping on TO for complaining about wanting the ball more after the loss to the Redskins a week ago. Sure, Owens was "thrown to" a bunch of time (17, I think), had a couple drops, 7 catches and two runs. So, he wasn't exactly frozen out, but don't mistake 17 balls going his direction with Romo giving him 17 opportunities to catch the ball.

Had I known the outcome of the game before it happened (as well as TO's comments), I would have taped the game and charted the throws to TO. Then, I'd be able to answer how many actual, realistic opportunities TO had to make catches in that game. Obviously, he had more than a few because he made 7 catches. But, really, the numbers are less relevant than I think people think they are.

If Player A is thrown to 10 times, but is unable to get his hands on any ball, whereas Player B is thrown to 5 times and makes 5 catches, who's really more involved? If a QB has a guy he throws to if no one is open, that WR will have inflated "thrown to" numbers without a comparable increase in actual opportunities to make catches. Should TO be happy that he is the intended receiver on a play when the ball is knocked down by a guy at the line?

I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine the only thing worse than not getting the ball thrown your way is to have uncatchable balls thrown your way. Wide receivers want to make plays, but their ability to make plays is contingent on the play of other players. If WR's don't get open, that's their fault. If the ball doesn't get there when they are open, that's when problems are bound to occur.

The 32 is not the 35

I'm watching the OU v. Baylor game, and I can't believe that awful officiating. One play in particular, Baylor had a 7 yard run on first down from the 25. He was obviously stopped at the 32 before being pushed back a couple of yards on the tackle. Much to my surprise, the next play was run from the 35 yard line ... and it was 1st and 10. Fortunately, I have the game taped, so I was able to verify that I'm not going crazy and that the officials missed the mark by 3 yards! It wasn't half a yard or a yard ... it was three. Now, later on the drive, the officials are measuring to see if it's a first down ... why not just move the ball forward 3 yards and give it to them?

Now, what's the difference between 1st and 10 at the 35 or 2nd and 3 at the 32? Not a whole lot. I'm not arguing that OU was adversely affected by the call ... I'm just saying that officiating crews shouldn't be making mistakes like that. And, why doesn't someone in the replay booth say something about the obvious error?

And, this wasn't the only marginal call. Baylor intercepted Bradford near the end zone in the 1st quarter, only to have the play called back by a marginal (at best) interference call that had no bearing on the play - I'm not even sure what the actual interference was. But OU was flagged for a personal foul for a late hit out-of-bounds that was far less egregious than a play later in the game by a Baylor player that didn't draw a flag. Then, there was the play that resulted in a Bradford interception where it sure looked like the ball hit the ground before being corralled by the Baylor player, although the interception was just as good as a punt for the Sooners (3rd down interception from midfield that gave Baylor the ball at the 10 - 40 yards net).

Plaxico: money or a game?

Giants WR Plaxico Burress was suspended by the Giants for two weeks (one game and a bye week) for missing a team meeting on Monday. I heard that he was upset about the suspension because he'd be letting his team down by not playing. So, it's a little disappointing that he's agreeing to a settlement in which the monetary punishment isn't as harsh, but he still has to miss a game.

Now, I don't know what alternatives were tossed about, but I think the Giants are better off with Plaxico on the field. So, in a way, they're biting off their nose to spite their face on this one, although missing a game against the Seahawks shouldn't derail the teams push for the playoffs. However, it seems like the best alternative for both sides (assuming Burress' bank account isn't one of the sides - which is a big assumption) if for Burress to play, but give up a little extra money.

Personally, I think the Giants want Burress to follow team rules, but they also want him out on the field. Maybe, they think keeping him off the field this time will help keep him on the field in the long run. Who knows? I do know that he's missing a game ... and I'm not sure that needs to be the case. And, I think the Giants agreeing not to go after any additional money due to stipulations in the contract is a good faith effort on the part of the organization. Wouldn't both sides be better off if Plaxico gave up the original amount of money and got to play? Wouldn't that be fine with his teammates?

Hank is right ... kind of (or almost?)

I just got done reading Hank's thoughts in the most recent edition of The Sporting News. I don't disagree with his idea that the top 4 teams from each league should go to the playoffs. However, I do disagree that it's as simple as sending the teams with the four best records from each league to the playoffs. That doesn't solve the problem.

This season, the Yankees went 21-19 in 40 games against teams from the AL Central, 18-14 in 32 games against teams from the AL West, 10-8 in interleague games and are 38-31 (with 3 games left against the Red Sox) against the AL East. At the end of the season, the Yankees will have played 72 (of 162) games against their AL East brethren. That's 4 out of every 9 (or 44.4%, and, yes, the 4's keep repeating) against 4 of the 29 other MLB teams. They are averaging 18 games against teams in their division and just 8 against the other AL teams.

Baltimore is 21-49 against the other teams in the AL East. The Orioles are 46-43 against everyone else. The two top teams in the AL Central have identical 45-45 records against teams outside of their divisions. Detroit is the only AL Central team with a winning record outside the division (Cleveland also has a 45-45 mark). The Angels have winning records against the East, Central, West and NL.

The Angels, Rays, Red Sox and Yankees are the four AL teams with winning records against each division in the AL and against the NL. The Twins and White Sox have been handled by the AL East and the Cleveland Indians are .500 in their division and 6 games under in interleague play (how'd that happen?).

Based on record, the Yankees would be right in it this year. What if we got rid of interleague play (especially of the unbalanced variety) and balanced out the schedule? I'm going to throw out interleague play because the competition isn't readily comparable. I'm going to compute the win % for each team against the AL East, Central and West. Then, I'm going to add the three numbers together and divide the sum by 3.

Rays: .591
Red Sox: .607
Yankees: .546
Twins: .486
White Sox: .514
Indians: .528
Angels: .629

Interestingly, the Angels have been slightly better against the AL East than the AL West this year (emphasis on slightly ... and I'm not saying that it means the AL West is stronger than the AL East!). The Angels are good. The Red Sox and Rays are right behind them. Did you see who's leading the AL Central? The Indians (although, I threw out the interleague games and the difference in those games is the same as the separation between the Twins/White Sox and the Indians). But, based on this, maybe the AL East should have three teams in the playoffs?!?

Obviously, it's not "fair" to make adjustments like this when determining playoff teams. And, I didn't take into account that there are 4 AL West teams and 5 in each the Central and East. And, because no one is actually going to use this for anything, I won't take the time (maybe Roy will once he's finished with his PhD?). But, the point is, the number of games you have against each team does matter - and I don't think anyone would debate that.

So, if you want to have a postseason with the four most deserving teams from each league (I won't say "best" because injuries throughout the year can derail the "best" team and keep them from posting the best record), you need to balance the schedule (at least within the constraints of scheduling) and take the four teams with the best records. However, if you don't balance the schedule, taking the teams with the four best records doesn't guarantee you get the teams that play the best throughout the season. The Twins might end up with 1 more win than the Yankee this year, but Minnesota did that by torching the AL Central. They had a losing record against both the AL East and the AL West. I have nothing against the Twins, but they aren't going to be playing anyone from the AL Central in the playoffs!

It's the division format's fault?

Silly me ... I thought that on the day the Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs they'd fade into the background. I should have known better. The Red Sox clinch a playoff berth and we get the following gem from Hank Steinbrenner:

"The biggest problem is the divisional setup in Major League Baseball. I didn't like it in the 1970s, and I hate it now. Baseball went to a multi-division setup to create more races, rivalries and excitement. But it isn't fair. You see it this season, with plenty of people in the media pointing out that Joe Torre and the Dodgers are going to the playoffs while we're not. This is by no means a knock on Torre -- let me make that clear -- but look at the division they're in. If L.A. were in the AL East, it wouldn't be in the playoff discussion. The AL East is never weak."

I wasn't around in the 1970's. I do remember the 4 division format (2 in the AL and 2 in the NL) we used to have. And, I remember the SF Giants being edged out by the Atlanta Braves after winning 103 games (the Braves won 104). Was that "fair"? That was the situation that year.

I'm fine with Hank speaking his mind, but a little discretion would go a long way. The World Series is contested between two teams, one from the AL and one from the NL. The Super Bowl pits one from the NFC against one from the NFC. The Western and Eastern Conference Champions meet in the NBA Finals. Recently, the NFC has been down a little bit, as has the Eastern Conference in basketball. But, there isn't a major professional sports league in the US that doesn't at least divide teams into two units.

So, why is Hank calling out the Los Angeles Dodgers? The Indianapolis Colts (AFC) don't keep the Dallas Cowboys (NFC) out of the playoffs. The Colorado Avalanche don't keep the Pittsburgh Penguins out of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Dodgers aren't keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. The Red Sox and Rays are keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. Right now, the Angels and White Sox would be the other two AL teams playing in the postseason. If Hank wants a target to gripe at, he should leave Torre alone and focus on Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox.

Chicago (the White Sox) leads the Central at 86-70. Hank's Yanks have compiled a record of 86-71 thus far this season. So, if the teams with the best four records from the AL made the playoffs, it would be a tight race down the stretch between those two, the Twins (85-72) and the Blue Jays (83-74), to a lesser extent.

In the NL, five teams (the Cubs, Brewers, Astros, Phillies and Mets) have better records than the NL West leading Dodgers. Additionally, Florida and St. Louis have the same number of wins and just one more loss than Torre's club.

And, theoretically, the unbalanced schedule should be leveling things out (because you play more games against teams in your division, so a certain number of losses have to be distributed within your division - look at the NFC East in football, where the combined record of the teams is 10-2, with both losses being in divisional match-ups ... the 4 teams are 8-0 outside of the division!). So, it's not unreasonable to think that the Yankees are the 4th best team in the AL and that the Dodgers are the 8th best team in the NL.

The problem with the Yankees is that they haven't been healthy this year. Sidney Ponson and Darrell Rasner were 3rd and 4th (behind Mussina - how did he win 19 games this year? - and Pettitte) in games started. Wang got hurt. Pavano ... well, what did you expect? Hughes and Kennedy weren't effective. Joba did a decent job, but couldn't stay healthy as a starter. The Yankees were relying on Hughes and Kennedy getting the job done, and it didn't happen. And, despite the outrageous payroll, they didn't have a lot of depth heading into the year.

Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Hughes and Kennedy with Pavano possibly contributing a few starts? Where's the redundancy? Ponson wasn't there at the start of the year. They didn't want to use Joba in the rotation this year. Maybe the thought was that they'd be able to get the wild card (no one thought the Rays would get 95+ wins). Maybe they thought they'd outscore teams. Unfortunately, the offense wasn't elite this year - currently, they are 11th in MLB in runs scored.

The problem in the bloated Yankees roster. The Yankees have so much money they should be smart and overpay for less years. Yes, I said overpay. Instead of signing Player A for $90 million over 6 years ($15 million per year), offer him $50-55 million for 3 years ($16.67-18.33 million per year). If the player performs well, you end up paying them more in the long run. However, you don't end up with money tied up in contracts with players like Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Carl Pavano, etc. It's worth a shot, at least.

And, when I hear people mentioning the names Ben Sheets and AJ Burnett as possibilities for the Yankees, I get pretty excited. Why? I'm not a Yankees fan. Why should the Yankees go after injury-prone starters? They shouldn't. They should pay a premium for durable, high-quality pitchers because they can afford them.

The Yankees shouldn't be upset about the current playoff format. They should be upset that the team they put together didn't win 100 games! And, they should look at this as an opportunity to figure out a better way to put the team together as they move forward.

Who Changed the Facemask Rule?

I was shocked when I heard that both college and professional football got rid of the 5-yard facemask penalty; all facemask violations are now 15-yard penalties. Who thought that was a good idea? Personally, I think it is one of the most asinine rule changes of modern time. Sure, sometimes the officials screwed up the enforcement of the previous set of rules (they'd give 5 yards when maybe they should have given 15 and vice versa). But, those errors were minor in the grand scheme of poor NCAA football and NFL officiating (need I remind people of the OU v. Oregon game I always reference because it is one of the worst examples of officiating ever, at any level ... and they had REPLAY!!!).

Now, the people who make the rules have laid out that touching the facemask (I'm not sure if this should get a penalty, but it does - an Oklahoma defender was flagged for 15 yards on an inconsequential drive earlier this season) is worthy of the same penalty as nearly decapitating someone by twisting their head around (or even changing the orientation of the helmet with respect to the player's head). Not only is this ridiculous (especially when you had a better system in place already), it's dangerous. Now, if you happen to get your hand in the facemask, you better make sure you get the guy down ASAP because you're probably going to cost your team 15 yards on the penalty, so you don't want to let the guy get an extra 5 dragging your butt down the field. What's one of the most effective ways to tackle a guy? Grab his facemask and rip him down. You're giving them 15 yards, you might as well make it worth it!

I think both entities (NCAA and NFL) should have gone to 3 facemask levels: 5, 10, and 15 yards - with the 15 yarder resulting in an automatic first down as before. The 10-yarder would bridge the gap between the "just barely grab" 5-yarder and the personal foul 15-yarder. Maybe that's just too much for the officials to handle?

P.S. I mentioned I saw one called when someone's hand just grazed the facemask and no grabbing occurred. I've also seen multiple people dragged down by their facemask this year (in both college and the NFL - Westbrook in the Eagles v. Cowboys game on one play) without a flag being thrown. Now, that's consistency!

Across the line!

Speaking of lines and horrible officiating, how do they miss Donovan McNabb crossing the line of scrimmage before throwing a pass? Actually, how do they ever miss that play, whether it's McNabb or not? That no call bailed the Eagles out of a bad situation (along with the facemask call at the end of the play). Missing calls like that is unacceptable - though not quite as bad as blowing the play to, ultimately, cost the Chargers a game.

Why no clamor over the Jackson play?

The ball being returned to the Broncos after Cutler's fumble because of an "inadvertent" whistle caused quite the uproar. Why aren't Mike, Tony and Jaws raising the same type of stink after Jackson tossed the ball away before scoring a TD? You'd think that after what happened yesterday, the refs would make sure before blowing their whistles. So, why weren't the Cowboys allowed to grab the ball and take possession of the obvious fumble?

And why was DeSean Jackson tossing the ball away before actually crossing the goal line? Oh well, if the refs are just going to give you the ball at the 1, it's not quite as big a deal. Maybe he had a deal with Brian Westbrook ... or maybe he has Westbrook on his fantasy team and doesn't have himself - he wanted the 6 points from a Westbrook TD. Who knows?

Jay: Do the math, but use a calculator!

Apparently, Gary Sheffield hit the 250,000th HR (according to baseball reference) against the A's Monday night. It was Sheffield's 2nd of the game and 496th career HR. Jay Crawford (who I think does an excellent job on First Take) said "And with that home run ... we did the math, Pete and I, our producer did the math ... Gary Sheffield has accounted for 0.2% of all the home runs ever hit."

Kudos to them for getting that right - the amount of rounding is fairly insignificant. Dana Jacobsen asked "Did you do Bonds?" Crawford responded "Bonds, point 3." Again, good job Jay. Dana, not such a good job on your response "Ok, he should be more, shouldn't he be higher than that?"

Crawford followed up with "If you have 250 home runs, you accounted for 0.1% of all the home runs ever hit in baseball." Again, right on. Unfortunately, they didn't leave it there. Dana said "I would like to see someone with one home run, what's his percentage?" Without consulting the calculator, Crawford adlibed "It's point 000250."

No, Jay, it's not 0.00025%. The correct answer is 0.0004%. What is happening to math skills in this country? If you divide 100 by 25, you don't get 2.5 ... you get 4!

Homer or Hypocrite?

Yesterday on PTI, JA Adande and Michael Wilbon were given AJ Pierzynski's interference play against the Tampa Bay Rays as a topic. JA Adande read the prompter "What do you know? There's a controversial baseball play and AJ Pierzynski's right in the middle of it. This one happened when the White Sox played the Tampa Bay Rays Sunday. Pierzynski was caught in a rundown, he pulled a Vlade Divac worthy flop, and somehow suckered the umpires into calling interference. So, Wilbon, do you applaud your boy's trickery, or should he be punished and the umpires suspended for making a mockery of the game."

Wilbon's answer is as appalling as Pierzynski's actions, although not unexpected: "Come on, baseball's based historically on these types of plays and all kinds of cheating ... Pierzynski is just smart ... Pierzynski knows how to get away with little things, it's savvy ... He made a smart play for his team which was about to get swept by Tampa in a battle of what had been first place teams, the White Sox salvaged that game, they go back into first ..."

Where does Wilbon stand on performance-enhancing drugs? If you condone Pierzynski's actions, you have to support all the steroid and HGH users for trying to help their teams, too ... right? Isn't it "smart" if you can get your chemist to manufacture a product that will help you out and not be detected by league testing?

Or, is it possible that Wilbon enjoys Pierzynski's antics more than similar shenanigans from other players because AJ plays for the Chicago White Sox? As long as one of Wilbon's home town teams benefits, everything is perfect.

Personally, I think Pierzynski should be suspended for a couple games for intentionally deceiving the umpires and baiting them into making an awful call. Additionally, the umpires involved should be suspended a game for allowing themselves to be duped like that. They should have been able to see that Pierzynski wasn't interfered with; it was obvious that Pierzynski went out of his way to try to create contact (emphasis on the "try to create" because there wasn't any meaningful contact). It should be looked at on a case by case basis, but Pierzynski doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me because he has a track-record. At some point, enough is enough. Pierzynski is a good player, but he should be told emphatically by the league that this type of action is unacceptable.

If Wilbon wants to praise Pierzynski, whatever. While baseball doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, Wilbon's opinions on PTI (while I do like PTI) are even less important. So, if he wants to say something outrageous (maybe that's what he was doing on this one?) every once in a while, well, it'll help keep the debate strong. If both people were right, there wouldn't be much debating.

Phelps: Best Athlete?

Michael Phelps has been the talk of the 2008 Olympics thus far, and rightfully so. Phelps set 7 world records during his 17 heat race to a record 8 gold medals. Phelps is a dominant intermediate distance swimmer. He blew away the field in the 400 IM, 200 butterfly (even with the goggle problem), 200 freestyle and 200 IM. He also showed he is the best butterflier in the world by edging Milorad Cavic in the 100 by 0.01 seconds in his most difficult individual test. He also swam the butterfly leg of the 4x100 medley relay for the US. While Phelps didn't swim any breast or backstroke events, his splits in the IM's demonstrated that he is more than adequate at both of those strokes.

Phelps is a great overall swimmer and he is terrific off the turn with his underwater dolphin kick. However, Phelps is hurt in some people's eyes (Skip Bayless, for one) by his inability to show that he is the fastest swimmer on the planet. He didn't attempt the 50 or 100 free, and his split in the lead-off leg of the 4x100 free relay showed that, while Phelps is fast, he's not in the same category in that event as the elite speed freestylers in the world. I imagine he'd be less suited for the 50 free because it doesn't allow him to use his superior endurance/speed combination or his great turns.

So, while Phelps' accomplishments are record-setting and should be applauded, they don't necessitate him being labeled as the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. In fact, I think making that claim based solely on the numbers does a disservice to every Olympic athlete, including Phelps. If you look at numbers of medals as the basis for your decision, you gloss over the actual accomplishments. The accomplishment is winning the 200 butterfly and setting a new WR, or the 200 freestyle, or the ... well, you get the point.

Phelps competes in a sport that allows him to win multiple gold medals. In fact, a swimmer could compete solely in the freestyle and win the 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 4x100 medley relay, 4x100 freestyle relay, and 4x200 freestyle relay. So, without being able to do the breaststroke, backstroke or butterfly, a great freestyler could win 9 gold medals. Sure, it would take an incredible swimmer, but the best a basketball player can do is one gold medal per Olympics (in basketball).

Usain Bolt just set world records in the 100 and 200, laying claim to his position as the world's fastest man. Mark Spitz previously won 7 gold medals in swimming. Usain Bolt is the only man to ever win gold in both the 100 and 200 while setting new WR's in both. Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens never did that. So, you can't just dismiss Bolt because he isn't going to win 8 gold medals. He does what he does better than anyone else ever has, and he's not a one trick pony. He has terrific high end speed and a good enough start to dominate the 100. And, he has enough endurance to cruise to victory in the 200. Of course, Usain Bolt isn't an elite long jumper (to the best of my knowledge) like Carl Lewis was. And, can Usain Bolt sing? Remember Carl Lewis' rendition of the national anthem? Oh yeah, Carl Lewis couldn't really sing either ... but he was a heck of a track athlete.

Michael Phelps has to propel his body through water. While he's unmatched at what he does, he just has to swim. In the decathlon, you have to run the 100m, 400m, 1500m and 110m hurdles. You also have to throw the discuss, shot put and javelin. To top it off, you have to long jump, high jump and pole vault. So, you have to run fast and be able to run relatively quickly over a fairly long distance. Plus, you have to be able to clear objects while running fast. You have to throw three totally different objects. And, you have to be able to jump horizontally, vertically, and launch yourself into the air using a pole. The array of skills required for the decathlon, to me, is far more diverse than the skills required of Michael Phelps. But, you could argue that decathletes aren't able to win any of the 10 events by themselves, so they don't have to be as good at each of the skills as a swimmer who is swimming the 200 free or the 100 butterfly. But, you have to admit that being a good freestyler/breakstroker/backstroker/butterflier doesn't adversely affect a swimmer's ability in the other strokes. However, that isn't true for decathletes. Have you seen the world-class discuss and shot put throwers? They are much thicker than the best 1500m runners in the world, who generally have a much different body shape than the top 100m sprinters in the world.

And, I don't think you can neglect athletes from sports that force you to react to something that an opponent does. And, no, someone going out fast in the 400 IM doesn't count. Michael Phelps knew if he crushed world records, he would be hard to beat. So, it was all about swimming his race (and getting help from teammates in the relays). In his closest race, the 100 fly, he set a new Olympic record, but didn't set the world record. In baseball, basketball, boxing, soccer, volleyball, etc., you have to be able to react to actions of your opponents. Don't you remember that Rocky movie with Ivan Drago?!?

I'm not an Olympic history expert. I didn't see Carl Lewis in 1984. I didn't see Jesse Owens run or Mark Spitz swim. So, I'm not going to throw out a pick for the best Olympic athlete ever. But, I do know you need more than medal counts to figure out the best athlete. If a gymnast won 7 gold medals (individual all-around, and all six event finals), he'd (yes, it's a he because the women only have 4 event finals, so the most a female gymnast could win is 6 gold medals - 5 individual + 1 team) come up one short of Phelps' record. Do you want him to win the 100m and 110m hurdles as well? Come on.

Manny being subversive

Manny Ramirez finally got his wish, he was banished from Red Sox Nation and sent to Hollywood to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers. I know, I know ... this is old news. Well, it was brought back to the forefront (for me) when I read a column in the Sporting News written by Detroit RP Todd Jones. The column, titled "In an ugly divorce, Manny beat Boston to the punch", Jones seems to defend Manny's actions.

Jones brings up the Twins' treatment of Torii Hunter and Johan Santana, stating that below market contracts were offered, then the terms were leaked so "The play looks greedy, and the team takes the high road." He said "Manny smelled that coming" and that "if the Red Sox didn't want to pick up his options, they would start a discreet campaign to turn the city against him." Jones points to the situation of Nomar Garciaparra as a case when the Red Sox did this previously.

While Jones does write that "I'm not condoning how Manny got out of Boston," I think he's surrounded by too many trees to see the forest. First, I'll get the Nomar case out of the way. Nomar was offered a fairly lucrative multi-year deal by the Red Sox. He turned it down and then his career took a downward trend. The Twins aren't a big market club. They can only afford to pay a couple veterans big money, and spending $20 million per year on a pitcher isn't a wise investment. The Twins can't wrap one third of their payroll into a guy who's going out there once every five days, especially for multiple years. If Santana got seriously hurt in the first year of a six year deal, the Twins would be crippled financially for years. If Hunter and Santana wanted to stay in Minnesota, they could have accepted slightly below market deals.

Moving back to the Ramirez situation, tanking like Manny did was ridiculous, even by Ramirez's standards. If Manny knew that the Red Sox weren't going to pick up his options for 2009 and 2010, as Jones contends, then why didn't Manny just go all out and try to post the best numbers he could in his last year in Boston? If he knew he wasn't going to be in Boston next year, then he knew he'd be a free agent this winter. While he has been on fire since joining the Dodgers (.424 BA, 6 HR's, 21 RBI in 16 games), he failed to show he could produce for the entire season after having a sub-par (for Manny) 2007 season - maybe he was tanking a little last year, too? Even worse, Manny showed the kind of behavior he is capable of if he isn't happy. No GM with a solid head on his shoulders is going to give Manny the long-term deal he's looking for because of the possibility that Manny will decide that he doesn't want to play hard. At that point, it will be the GM's problem and said GM will have to figure out how to maximize value in a trade (as Theo did in Boston) to pass the buck or figure out how to make Manny happy (good luck).

I'm not sure what went wrong for Manny in Boston, but I think the situation is further evidence that the compensation system in baseball needs to be reworked. The salary structure up front for stars like Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, etc. is out-of-whack. Similarly, veterans shouldn't be on 7-year, guaranteed money deals. If Manny could have left Boston (or Boston could have kicked Manny to the curb to pursue A-Rod) years ago, this whole fiasco never would have materialized. And, maybe the Mariners would have a few more wins for all the millions they've spent this year. But, unfortunately, I know a new, improved system isn't on the horizon.

Medal Count - Who cares?

Yes, I know, the Olympic medal count is sacred. Winning the overall (and gold) medal count proves the athletic superiority of your country! Right.

The only thing the medal count is useful for is counting medals. You can see which country has won the most medals. You can see if a country won more medals than in previous games, although this is tricky if the number of events changes. When did synchronized diving become an Olympic sport?

Now, divers can not only win their regular diving events, they can also team up and win the synchronized diving competition. Nice. While there may (and I stress the word "may") be demand for synchronized diving, I find the event to be ridiculous. While the judging in diving hurts it in my sports definition, the additional judging required in the synchronized event essentially eliminates it from any consideration, at least in my eyes. What's next, 3 people diving side-by-side-by-side in harmony? How 'bout 4? I can hardly wait!

Many of the best athletes in the United States play football, baseball and basketball. Hockey and soccer are other team sports that suck up large athletic resources of many countries. And, while basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball (at least this year) are Olympic sports, there is only 1 medal at stake, even though there are at least 12 players on each of those teams. And, while a country might have more than one individual (track events, among others) or team (beach volleyball) in some sports, you only get one entry per country in the large team sports.

So, what's my point? Not all sports are treated equally when it comes to medal allotment. Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals at this Olympics. If Nastia Liukin and her teammates on the USA gymnastics team had swept everything, she would have won 6 gold medals (team, individual all-around, and event finals on the uneven bars, vault, floor and balance beam). Phelps won three relays, the 200 free, two IM's, and the 100 and 200 butterfly. He didn't compete in the 100 and 200 breast and back or the 50, 100, 400, 800 or 1500 free, or any of the ones I may have left off the list.

So, even if you can simplify it down and say that only Olympic events determine the worth of a country's athletes, which you can't, it doesn't make sense to base things solely off medals. But, I guess, if your country's doing well in the medal count, you can go ahead and taunt people from other countries ... but I won't be doing that.

What did Sapp say?

During NFL Live today, Warren Sapp offered the following while praising Brett Favre: "pressure only busts a pipe, and I think he's not made of PCP."

PCP is the abbreviation for phencyclidine, a dissociative drug. Sapp was looking for PVC, which is the abbreviation for the common thermoplastic polymer polyvinyl chloride.

However, it's hard to bust on Sapp too much for a simple slip of the tongue like this one. On the other hand, the idea that LBJ or Kobe taking the massive money being talked about from a team in Europe will automatically lead to David Stern opening up a European NBA division is ludicrous in a much more offensive fashion. At this point, I'm not sure who I first heard this idea from (I think it was someone on ATH or PTI). But, that's neither here nor there.

The problem with that thought is that I seriously doubt LeBron James wants to play in Greece (over NY) if the money is the same. So, unless Stern is going to allow the European teams to circumvent the salary structure associated with the rest of the NBA, James isn't going to reside on the other side of the Atlantic while playing in the NBA. I don't always know what Stern is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to shift the power in the NBA to Europe by allowing European squads in his league to pay free agents whatever they want. Stern won't allow it and neither will the North American owners.

If Stern thinks Kobe and LeBron (and others stars) might actually leave the NBA, he might have to rethink the current salary structure in the game - which wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me. Or, is it possible that Kobe and LeBron are posturing and are just using the prospect of a big European deal to get more money in the NBA?

Hornets in OKC

Yeah, I know, it's the Seattle team coming to OKC, not the Hornets. And, in the wake of the settlement between Seattle and the team formerly known as the Sonics, I caught some discussion between an ESPNews anchor and someone from a sports radio station in OKC. The anchor was asking if OKC could support a team long-term. Near the end of the interview, the anchor mentioned that the Sonics were a 20 win team and they weren't a playoff team like the New Orleans Hornets. So, it might be harder for fans to get behind the new team than it was to root for the Hornets.

I know the Hornets were good this year. But, they weren't in OKC this year. They won the stacked Southwest Division with 56 wins (tied with San Antonio and one game ahead of Houston). However, they won 38 games the first year in OKC and won 39 games the second year in OKC. The first year in OKC was PG Chris Paul's rookie season and he was injured part of his second year. Additionally, Peja Stojakovic barely played in 06-07 because of injuries. What I don't understand is why the anchor on ESPNews didn't know that the Hornets weren't nearly as good in previous years as they were this year. In fact, the Hornets won just 18 games the year before they came to OKC. Yeah, that's why they got Chris Paul. But, the Hornets still drew well that first year in OKC, despite coming at the last minute (Hurricane Katrina hit August 29th, 2005) and not being particularly good.

The new OKC team should get plenty of support, although I'm not really going out on a limb in saying that they probably won't make the playoffs this coming season. Kevin Durant, Jeff Green and Russell Westbrook were all high draft picks in the last two drafts. So, theoretically, the team will improve (Durant and Westbrook are just 19 years old). And, for what it's worth, the leading scorer (Durant) and the leading rebounder (Nick Collison) both played their college ball in the Big 12. Maybe 18 year old Serge Ibaka will turn into the force in the middle this team has lack just when the other youngsters are hitting their stride and the OKC team will be a contender in a few years. If not, maybe they'll at least be an exciting, uptempo team.

But, whether or not OKC supports the new team like they supported the Hornets isn't the point. The point is that the Hornets weren't a playoff team the years they made OKC home. In fact, 38 wins in 05-06 was considered a major achievement by many. So, it probably won't matter that the new team isn't challenging the Bulls for the win record any time soon. And, anchors on ESPNews should know their stuff before they do interviews!

When is PTI not PTI?

When Tony and Mike aren't there.

Today, we got another round of Adande and Mariotti. Things were going relatively well until they got to talking about former Pittsburgh Penguin Marian Hossa. Hossa, apparently, turned down $35 million over 5 years from the Penguins to take a 1 year deal with the Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings for $7.45 million.

Mariotti started the segment on Hossa with the following "For those tired of greed in sports, let me offer up one Marian Hossa." He then gave the numbers of the deals from the Penguins and Wings, as well as mentioning reports that he had offers of up to $81 million with other teams.

Marian Hossa scored 43 goals and had 57 assists the year before last. Last season was a down year, he scored 29 goals and had 37 assists in his time with the Atlanta Thrashers and the Penguins. So, I don't think this is a story for those tired of greed. Hossa turned down a long-term deal at an average of $7 million per year to play one season at $7.45 million (that's more than $7 milion) and look for a bigger deal next year. Hossa is 29 years old and shouldn't be on the decline just yet. That's what he's banking on. If he had signed for $7.45 million over 5 years with Detroit, that would have been a story.

Later on, Mariotti provided this gem: "Everybody loves Crosby and Malkin, why would you leave that and go to Detroit? I understand the Red Wings are a dynasty, a hallowed name in hockey, but come on ... $35 million ... $7 million ... duh, this is pretty dumb if you ask me."

I don't know why Hossa signed the deal he did. Did he just want a 1 year deal to improve his stock for next year? Did he want out of Pittsburgh? Did he want to play for Detroit and didn't care about the length of the contract? If anyone has great insight, post a comment. But, Mariotti comparing $35 million over 5 years to $7.45 million over 1 year and saying turning down the 5 year deal for the 1 year deal is dumb is idiotic on Mariotti's part. If Hossa suffers a career-ending injury next year, then it probably wasn't the best idea to turn down a long-term deal. But, Hossa is apparently willing to accept that amount of risk. Plus, he has the potential to improve his stock and cash in big next summer. If he can get $10 million per year for 4 years after next season, he'll wind up with $47.45 million over 5 years instead of $35 million. It seems like a no-brainer to sign the one-year deal this year in that scenario.

We'll see what happens. Maybe turning down the deal with the Penguins was stupid. If the Red Wings tank next year and the Penguins win it all, it will look like the wrong call. Or, maybe Hossa will hoist the Stanley Cup with Detroit. I know that at this point I don't know what's going to happen. And, that's why Mariotti's comments are absolutely ridiculous.

Wilbon on Seedings

On PTI yesterday, Michael Wilbon downplayed Fresno State's underdog status by stating that they were a 4 seed, so Villanova's win over Georgetown when the Wildcats were an eighth seed was a bigger upset. Wilbon stated something to the effect that an 8 seed is higher than a four seed, even if there are sixteen 4 seeds in baseball.

I'm not an expert on the history of all college sports, so I'm not going to proclaim Fresno State's vicoty in the 2008 College World Series as the greatest upset in the history of collegiate sports. I'm not even going to compare it to Villanova's run that culminated in a victory over a heavily favored Georgetown Hoyas squad. However, I am slightly annoyed by Wilbon.

Baseball divides 64 teams into 16 regions. In a given region, there are seeds 1-4. Thus, there are 16 of each. So, presumably, there are at least 48 teams (16x3) that are better than Fresno State - at least in the eyes of the people choosing teams and making brackets. Therefore, at best, Fresno State is equivalent to a #13 seed in the basketball tournament (48/4=12; the top 48 fill the 1-12 spots in each region). So, Fresno State, by seeding, is a bigger underdog than #8 Villanova. Wilbon's statement and reasoning were ridiculous. In "Wilbon's America", he would probably face jail time for such absurd comments.

Ump Bump

I'm watching ATH (recorded) and just listened to all four panelists bash the home plate ump (Brian Runge) in the Mets' loss to the Mariners on Tuesday. Sure, Runge initiated the contact with Mets Manager Jerry Manuel. So, in that regard, he was probably out-of-line. However, let's not get caught up in the trees with this one.

If we look back to the play that started the incident, Runge called a strike on a pitch to Carlos Beltran that looked like a strike. Apparently, Runge didn't particularly like the way Beltran was questioning the call. But, what was Beltran doing? You aren't supposed to argue balls and strikes and it isn't that smart to get on an ump about a call in the middle of an AB anyway. I'm not sure why Beltran thought it was a ball. If it was obviously a crappy call, I'd be a little more supportive of Mr. Beltran.

So, my point is that Beltran was the instigator in this incident. He was out-of-line to complain far before Runge was out-of-line to chest bump. It doesn't make what Runge did right, but I think the Mets involved need to take some responsibility for their roles in this instead of throwing it all on the umps.

In a related matter, I saw another HR call was missed. Replay showed the ball hit off the top of the fence and came back and the umps ruled it hit something beyond the fence and came back on the field. Replay would have come in handy, so I'm glad baseball is headed in that direction. How is this related to the Runge-Beltran-Manuel incident? Some people are worried that replay will slow down games. If we can bring in replay and get rid of ridiculous arguments like the one between Runge and Beltran and Manuel and Runge ... and Runge and Beltran again ... I think we'll end up ahead.

If Beltran thought the pitch was low ... just say "I thought that was low." and leave it at that. Obviously, Runge didn't feel that way. Did anything constructive come out of the argument? Manuel and Beltran both got tossed and we're talking about inappropriate actions of an ump ... I'm sure that's the solution all parties were looking! It's a win-win-win for the three of them.

Molina Concussion

On today's St. Louis v. Boston game, Tim McCarver said the play resulting in Yadier Molina's concussion was a clean play by Eric Bruntlett. Bruntlett ran Molina over when Molina had his back to him attempting to catch a ball from 1B Albert Pujols.

I won't go into detail on my thoughts regarding blocking the plate and collisions. Personally, I don't see why catchers should be allowed to block home. If they weren't allowed to do it, there would be no need for people to try to run them over (except to knock the ball loose) ... so that shouldn't be allowed either. If MLB wants to limit injuries, don't let catchers (or players at any base) block the base/plate and suspend any runner who causes a major collision.

Getting back to the Molina play, it might not have been illegal, but it definitely wasn't "clean." There was no reason for Bruntlett to knock Molina over. One could argue that Bruntlett had to make up his mind before it was apparent whether or not Molina would be able to tag him. Maybe. But, I think Bruntlett screwed up. Molina wasn't blocking the plate. He was out in front of home waiting to accept the throw. He reached back around to his right (without turning around to face Bruntlett) to try to apply the tag. All Bruntlett had to do was slide in ... home plate was wide open. While it might not be an extremely "dirty" play, it was by no means "clean."

Moving on to other things, after a two-out, two-run single, McCarver mentioned that he tries not to give too many stats but wanted to point out that the Cardinals lead the majors in two-out hits. Joe Buck supported the importance of the stat by saying that two-out hits and RBI's are pointed to my coaches and managers as one of the most underrated stats. Then, Joe Buck gave the following jewel:

"For the Cardinals, they have 145 RBI's with two outs this season, second most in all of baseball. I guess a part that's interesting, and maybe it throws that theory out the window is the only team that leads them the Pittsburgh Pirates and the team right behind them the Texas Rangers."

Texas leads the league in runs scored. Pittsburgh is tied for 6th (out of 30 teams) in the league in runs despite ranking 21st in OBP and 18th in SLG. Texas is right behind Boston and the Chicago Cubs in OPS; Pittsburgh has the 18th best OPS in the league. The reason both Texas and Pittsburgh are hovering just below .500 is because they don't have any pitching. Texas ranks 29th in the league in ERA (4.99). What is the only team below them? You guessed it ... the Pittsburgh Pirates (5.05).

Texas and Pittsburgh not pitching well (to put it mildly) doesn't diminish the importance of two-out hits by the offense. If anything, it makes them more important (you need to capitalize on every opportunity because the pitching staff is sure to give up more runs). If anything, this points to the idea that no one baseball stat will correlate directly to W-L record. Toronto has the third best ERA in baseball. However, they just fired their manager and are below .500 and in last place in the AL East. Baltimore and Toronto are in the top 5 in Saves (a stat you can only get in a game you win), but they are 4th and 5th, respectively, in the AL East. SD has the 3rd fewest errors in the league, yet they are half a game out of the cellar in the NL West. Cincy is 12.5 games back in the NL Central, despite being 7th in the league in HR's.

I'm guessing that if you look at normal stats (OPS, ERA, etc.) and there is a disconnect between those stats and a team's record, you might be able to find that less flashy stats can explain some of it.

Questionable Calls (or No-calls) in Game 6

I helped my mother-in-law move for 15 hours last Thursday, so I didn't get around to watching game 4 until Friday. So, I'll pay careful attention today and list each and every mistake I see during tonight's game.

Did Pau get the opening tip before the toss reached its peak?

On Kobe's first shot, he traveled. He caught the ball with his left foot in the air, put it down, then moved his right foot back towards his body (11:41 left in 1st).

I'll continue with comments.

MacMullan on Replay

I finally got around to watching yesterdays ATH this afternoon and I was amazed at the thoughts of Jackie MacMullan:

"Listen, I'm all for replay, I think we've made that clear all along here. But, I'm not sure, Tony, that I go along with the idea of doing it in the middle of the season. What about all those teams that already were penalized because the umpires got the score wrong like in the Mets-Yankees game earlier this year? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're gonna do it, you should do it across the board on an even playing field. If you institute it now, that's not the case. I don't go for this."

Kevin Blackistone thinks it's a good idea, while Tim Cowlishaw agrees with Jackie Mac.

Honestly, Cowlishaw and MacMullen couldn't be more wrong on this one. There is nothing wrong with bringing in replay on August 1st. MLB isn't changing any rules. Using replay merely helps eliminate human error on specific calls.

MacMullen implies that using replay ruins the fairness of human error. I don't think human error works that way in this case. Granted, if there are enough close HR calls, the umps should get approximately the same percentage right and wrong. The human error will probably even out. However, how long do we have to wait? Are there enough of these plays during a year that holding off on replay is going to help even things out? I really doubt it, which is why I think it's asinine to make the argument that instituting replay punishes teams like the Mets who were wronged by bad calls earlier in the season.

Some rules shouldn't be changed during the season. If MLB wanted to change the rule governing SB's to say runners can't leave the base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand (I think that's the softball rule), it would adversely affect certain teams that have been built on speed. Guys like Juan Pierre, Ichiro, Jose Reyes and Jacoby Ellsbury wouldn't be as valuable. Or, making changes to the strike zone to widen the zone 5 inches on either side of the plate wouldn't be a good change. It would unfairly help teams with good control pitchers (remember the Atlanta Braves ten years ago?) who can consistently work in areas where batters can't hurt them. Greg Maddux is a lock for the Baseball Hall of Fame, but he's always been a lot easier to hit if he has to throw balls in the zone.

I'm not sure how many calls replay will affect. But, as we go down the home stretch of the baseball season, each and every game takes on added importance (because there is less time to recover from a game lost because of a crappy call). Thus, I'm all for any changes MLB wants to implement (within reason, obviously) to help umps get the calls right.

Fair Officiating

On ESPN today, John Ireland mentioned the officiating was fair in game 5 of the NBA Finals in LA and cited the equal number of fouls (28) and FT attempts (31) for each side.

Whoa! Slow down there.

If there were 10 penalties for 75 yards enforced on each team in a football game, would you automatically presume that the officiating was "fair" in that contest? If both teams in a baseball game get the same percentage of strikes called by the plate ump, would that be an example of "fair" officiating? If two random students are given the exact same score on an exam, is that an example of "fair" grading?

If your elementary schooler provides an answer of 168, while his friend answers 142 to the following question: 12 x 14 = ______, do you think both students should receive the same amount of credit? If they both answer 168, then they should both get the same amount of credit.

It's possible that equal number of fouls and FT attempts occur in a game that is officiated fairly. However, fair officiating does not imply that the fouls and FT attempts will be equal, nor does an occurrence of similar numbers of fouls and FT attempts imply fair officiating in the contest.

If the Lakers commit 35 plays that should be called fouls, but only get called for 28 of them, while the Celtics should be whistled for 42 but only 28 are enforced, is that fair?

Additionally, Ireland is assuming fouls and FT attempts are the only important numbers. KG got his 1st foul on a marginal (at best) play when Derek Fisher was out of control on a fast break. I took a look at the replay multiple times and couldn't see what they were calling. Then, he got his 3rd foul on an absolutely ridiculous call, a clean strip where there was no contact on a shot attempt by Pau Gasol. As a result of this "foul trouble", Garnett's minutes were limited (I guess you could argue Garnett shouldn't have been putting himself in position for the officials to screw the calls up, but that's a weak argument) and further depleted the Celtics inside (they didn't have Kendrick Perkins), helping the Lakers win the rebound war after being hammered on the glass early in the series.

Moving away from fouls, calling or not calling traveling can impact the game a few points here and a few points there. Also, neglecting three-in-the-key or illegal defense can impact a game in an unfair fashion. Was it "fair" that the refs missed it that Derek Fisher's shot hit the rim at the end of the controversial game against the Spurs (the Barry-Fisher no call game)? By missing that call, they robbed the Lakers of a chance to get fouled and have a chance to go up 3 late and the result was that Kobe had to battle the shot clock and the Spurs had a chance to win the game after Kobe missed.

Basketball is a complicated game and to look at a couple numbers at the end of the game and cite them as evidence of "fairness" by the officials is ludicrous. Ireland might be right in saying that the officiating was pretty even in game 5, but I'd much prefer him citing his observation of the game than trying to fool people with meaningless statistics.

Bavetta

I was contemplating writing about Dick Bavetta after the game last night. Until I watched today's PTI, I had decided against it. However, Tony and Mike brought it to my attention that Bavetta is tied to the fixing of the game between the Lakers and Kings and allegations of helping home teams win playoff games. Or ... something like that.

Maybe this is because I know who Dick Bavetta is and couldn't match names to faces of many different NBA officials, but I tend to notice Bavetta more than I think I should during games. This thought jumped into my mind last night when I saw Bavetta call traveling on Paul Pierce very early in the game when it appeared Pierce was going to travel. While it appeared he was going to travel, he started his dribble before he actually traveled. But, Bavetta didn't see that ... he was already doing an overly dramatic (and energetic) traveling call and heading the other way before the play unraveled.

Did that turnover have a major impact on the game? Maybe. Perhaps, if the Celtics score on that possession, they wouldn't have been steamrolled in the first quarter and wouldn't have had to claw back from a huge (19 points) deficit. Or, maybe they would have turned the ball over later in the possession and things would have gone similarly. I don't think that call did a whole lot of damage and I'm not trying to say Bavetta was fixing the game.

But, why didn't Bavetta see what happened to Pierce? I think Bavetta anticipates calls. Traveling is rarely called in the NBA. In a chat with Roy today, he joked "I didn't know traveling was still illegal in the NBA." So, when I see it called, I usually take an extra look to make sure it is traveling. Frequently, the player called for traveling doesn't travel ... he just doesn't move in the "normal" or expected fashion. The official sees the odd movement and assumes a travel occurs. And, all too often, Dick Bavetta is making the call and then sprinting the other way.

Why is Bavetta so lively and animated? Is he trying to make sure we know he's still fit, even at 68 years old? Is he trying to draw attention to himself and become a celebrity - why did he race Barkley? And, why is Bavetta anticipating calls? Are his reactions not up to par? I don't really care what the reason is that Bavetta is messing up calls. I'd prefer that he not do it ... and if that's not possible, then he shouldn't be given the opportunity to do it.

Moving on to the subject of traveling:

KG was called for another travel in game 5. Granted, he traveled. But, it wasn't that bad ... he just let his pivot foot slide a little bit.

Derek Fisher traveled with just over 90 seconds left in the game when he received a pass after an offensive rebound by the Lakers. For those of you who don't remember the play, he caught the ball with a foot in the air. The airborne foot came down after he caught the ball. Then, he moved the other foot closer to his body. So ... he moved both of his feet after catching the ball. That's a no-no!

Why call traveling on Pierce and KG but not on Fisher? Hopefully, it isn't related to the colors. But, whatever the reason, if you're going to call traveling, call traveling. If you aren't, don't. You can't pick and choose ... and you can't, honestly, have missed Fisher traveling! Right?

One comment on game 4

I'm not greatly offended by this, but Kobe Bryant travels regularly after catching the ball in the back court before he puts the ball on the floor. He did it multiple times in the fourth game of the finals. Where's the token call on that?

When should you make the call?

I won't spend a lot of time harping on the officiating from the third game of the NBA Finals. I didn't think it was particularly good, but it wasn't overly bad either. But, there is one call I have a problem with. The officials called PJ Brown for traveling when he came to a stop after catching a ball outside the three-point line. While the official didn't screw the call up (Brown did travel), travels like that happen all the time. If you are going to let everyone else get away with it, why whistle Brown for the violation? Radmanovich wasn't called for traveling when he obviously took an extra step before taking off for his break-away dunk near the end of game 2!

If you want an obvious, more egregious offense that gives a player an advantage, whistle Lamar Odom for carrying the ball bringing the ball up the court. Or, if you want to call a travel on Brown, call one palming violation on Odom.

And, while KG does travel (and got called for it, though not every time), so does Kobe. Maybe I'll blog real-time during game 4 (doubtful, because I have to help my mother-in-law move and will have to utilize my DVR). If not, I'll try to do a decent run-down of all (or most) of the awful missed (and made) calls a few hours after they happen.

Tiger's Torrey Pines Challenge

Tony Romo shot an 84, Justin Timberlake shot a 98 and Matt Lauer came home with after 100 strokes. As I heard it, Tiger said no golfer with a 10 handicap could break 100 at the course as it is configured for the 2008 U.S. Open. Romo broke 100, but he has a 2.2 handicap. Timberlake and Lauer both have handicaps around 6. So, while Romo made it around at just 13-over par and Timberlake only took an extra 1.5 strokes per hole (27-over), they don't fit the 10 handicap criteria Tiger put out there.

Consistently Inconsistent

It happened again in the second game of the NBA Finals. And, again, an alternate interpretation was used by a referee. That makes three times in (I think) the last three games for the Boston Celtics.

What happened? Paul Pierce got a defender in the air, traveled, drew contact and hoisted up the shot. While each incident was slightly different, the differences were small enough for me to consider them as virtually the same play. I know Pierce traveled on the first two, and while I didn't get a great look at his feet on the one from Sunday night, the official called traveling, so I'm just going to assume that he traveled. In all three, Pierce definitely initiated the contact on a defender who was airborne (and not moving strictly up and down).

So, I was a little surprised when the official got the call right and whistled Pierce for traveling in the most recent incident. While I applaud the official for getting the call right, I'm more than a little bothered by the lack of consistency and this is a perfect example of the lack of game-to-game consistency of officiating in the NBA. These three plays should have the league up in arms and trying to come up with a solution to avoid problems like this in the future. Why? While this particular play isn't going to doom the league, it is inconsistencies of this nature that drive players (and coaches) nuts and lead to integrity questions.

Let me recap the three calls before we proceed. The first time, Pierce was whistled for an offensive foul. Then, he scored a 4-point play by hitting the FT after nailing the three while being fouled in the first game of the NBA Finals. In the most recent incident, he was called for a traveling violation. So, three instances of the same general play and three different calls.

What is the right call in that instance? I think the travel call. But, the previous officials have overlooked the travel and called the contact. But, if you aren't going to call traveling, what's the right call? If the same play is called three different times by three different officials (I'm not certain that is that case because I don't know who the officials were that called the three), it seems like there is a problem. And, if the call has anything to do with the defender who is guarding Paul Pierce then it is definitely a problem.

The call should not depend on the official. Different officials don't get different rules in their rule books (at least, I can't imagine that is what's going on). While different officials certainly interpret rules differently, I don't see that as a good thing. This isn't the supreme court, they are cut and dry rules to a sport. So, maybe less needs to be left up for interpretation.

And, the call should not depend on any other factors either. The offensive player has been a constant for us, but it doesn't need to be. And, if it's a travel when Paul Pierce does it, it should be a travel if Kobe does it or if Unknown Player does it. If it's an offensive foul, it should always be an offensive foul. Time and score shouldn't matter (did the Celtics' huge lead on Sunday make the travel call easier for the official?) and neither should the identity of the defender.

Maybe Pierce will create a similar situation later on in the NBA Finals and we'll be able to see how the official reacts to that situation. While I think Pierce should have been called for traveling on all three of the plays so far, I'm open to arguments in favor of either foul call. But, what I cannot support is the inconsistency because there is no place for inconsistency in officiating of sports.

You Make the Call

Recent discussions about instant replay in baseball have made me realize the error of my ways. Sports don't need replay. Human error by the officials is just part of the game. So, I've come up with an ingenious promotion to increase fan involvement in the games. Perhaps, we could use it to raise money for charity as well.

My proposal is that half the officiating crew for each game is made up of actual officials and that the other half are selected in some fashion (randomly among ticket holders who apply at least 30 minutes before a given game, highest bidder in an on-line auction the day of the game with the proceeds going to charity, etc.). I realize basketball games use 3 officials currently, but I'd implement 4 officials for NBA games. An extra set of eyes can't hurt, right? Maybe the extra official would notice that Paul Pierce traveled egregiously before drawing contact on his 4-point play last night. The funny thing is that he did a very similar thing (traveled and drew contact from an airborne defender) against the Pistons and he got called for an offensive foul. No fouls should have been called because he traveled on both occasions! But, I digress.

The positions would rotate game by game and the current number of officials should stay employed. The official officials would serve as backups in case something happened to any of the guest officials during action. So, every other game, we'd have an untrained umpire behind home plate in baseball games. Yeah, he (or she) might miss a few calls, but the trained umps currently employed miss calls too. Hopefully, the guest umps would be fairly consistent with their calls. If not, then we'll just have awkward arguments between players and fans and a little more human error than we're accustomed to.

This new system might also introduce a new wrinkle in home field advantage. But, in the end, it should equal out like the DH/pitcher hitting is supposed to even out in MLB interleague play. Teams do some ridiculous things to gain advantages (long grass at Notre Dame Stadium) and the current officials are far from infallible - there are numerous examples from college football officiating and replay to draw on for this one (see OU at UO).

I'm anticipating that Roger Goodell will rush to implement this for the upcoming football season and Bud Selig will be close behind (he might even want to test it in the playoffs this fall!). The NHL will jump at the opportunity to try to draw in extra fans with the promotion and David Stern has to view Average Joe as an upgrade over Tim Donaghy.

Obviously, I'm not really advocating this ridiculous idea. There is a reason that HS officials don't generally work professional games. They aren't good enough. The officials that work in MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the NFL are, generally, the best at what they do. So, if the leagues go through the trouble to screen officials and review officials because they want the very best officials (because better officials have less human error - remember, officials aren't there to have an impact on the game, they are there to officiate), why not use technology if can further reduce human error in a timely fashion? Tennis does it. Why don't the other sports investigate more progressive ways they can improve the overall officiating of games?

Sox and Rays: Who's fault is it?

A fight broke out in the game between the Rays and the Red Sox today after James Shields intentionally threw at Coco Crisp in retaliation for a hard slide on Akinori Iwamura the previous night.

Was anyone surprised? I wasn't. Coco Crisp and Rays Manager John Madden got into a shouting match after the incident in which Madden believed Crisp slid too hard and late into Iwamura. Crisp plays outfield, so the most efficient technique to get retribution is throwing at him.

This might be the way problems in baseball are taken care of, but does that make it right? An eye for an eye? When does the cycle stop? Will it be over after Shields hits Crisp or will the Red Sox come back and nail one of the Rays?

I'm sure the league will have something to say about the incident. Crisp and Shields will, almost certainly, be suspended. Matt Kemp and Yorvit Torrealba were both suspended following their skirmish earlier in the week. Why doesn't the league step in preemptively?

If Coco Crisp violated the MLB code of ethics, then he should be suspended. By suspending Crisp, there wouldn't be a need for James Shields to throw at Crisp to retaliate. The result is that Crisp is still suspended, but Shields isn't suspended and MLB doesn't have another brawl on their record - I can't imagine the league office likes to see these incidents, which is why they suspend the players involved (unless they secretly like them but don't want to be seen as condoning them). Shields is only suspended because he was the starter for the Rays today. If Scott Kazmir had started, he probably would have been the one throwing at Crisp.

If the league doesn't feel Crisp did anything wrong, and no penalty was leveled against him, and Shields decided to throw at him then Shields (and only Shields) should be suspended for the intentional HBP. Of course, if Crisp charged the mound, he'd then be in the wrong and deserve a suspension as well.

The league should try to limit late, hard, takeout slides and intentional plunkings of players for the safety of the players. A system of penalties should be devised (either fines or suspensions) to discourage players from committing the violations. I thought the league was interested in speeding up the games. Brawls and shouting matches embarrass the league and waste time, although a segment of fans might find them entertaining. I'm all for watching a good fight, but I'd rather watch Faber v. Pulver or GSP v. Hughes or Griffin v. Rampage than anything involving baseball players. Basebrawls aren't good fights, for the most part.

Late slides would be penalized. Intentional plunkings would be penalized. Charging the mound would be penalized. Pushing the catcher when he's tagging you out after a dropped third strike would be penalized. That's about all you'd need, I think.

Somewhat related question: Generally, people don't have a problem with antics of pitchers after a big out (think K by Joba Chamberlain, Carlos Zambrano, etc.). But, people do have a problem with antics of hitters after a big hit (think HR by Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, etc.). Why the discrepancy? Why are hitters thrown at after admiring a tape measure HR if pitchers are fist-pumping after a big K? Aren't the pitchers showing up the hitters in much the same way that hitters are showing up the pitchers?

Cliches won't help the M's

Last night, Mariners SP Carlos Silva (the loser in a 5-4 defeat at the hands of the Angels) provided the following quote:

"One thing in here is, I know everybody has to do their own job, but don't forget it's a team. A lot of people in here play for themselves ... Like, 'If I get my two hits, it's OK. That's my day. I made my day."

While I'll admit that I don't get many Seattle games in the OKC area (unless you count future Sonics games), I'm pretty sure that the problem with the Mariners is not that guys are getting theirs and it's just not fitting together as a team. Just look at the numbers for the starting pitchers. It's fairly apparent there aren't a lot of quality starts being logged. While Felix Hernandez has posted a solid 3.29 ERA. Erik Bedard's ERA, 4.47, would be palatable if he wasn't supposed to be the second ace of the staff. Miguel Batista (5.90 ERA), Carlos Silva (5.96 ERA) and Jarrod Washburn (6.56 ERA) round out the pitching staff. In 6 May starts, Silva managed just 27 innings and an ERA of 11.00. Not great for a guy making in excess of $8 million this year. Despite making $9.5 million this year, Batista has only had 3 good starts (6+ innings with 3 or less earned runs allowed) this season. Washburn has 4 such quality starts despite making close to $10 million this year. By my count, Bedard and Hernandez each have 6 QS's. But, Safeco is supposed to be a decent pitcher's park.

Sometimes, you get unlucky and don't string hits together at the right times. Or, the hitting and pitching don't coincide in a manner that allows you to win a lot of games. But, the pitching has just been bad to start the year. But, the starting pitchers shouldn't get all the blame for the putrid start.

Richie Sexson isn't hitting his weight (.200 vs. 240 lbs) and has an OBP of .277. Kenji Johjima and Jose Vidro are hitting in the .220's and Adrian Beltre still hasn't come close to reproducing the stats he put up in his walk year with the Dodgers. Somehow, he hit .334 with 48 HR's and 121 RBI's that year. While he may break the 30 HR barrier this year, his 13 in 59 games extrapolates to 36 over 162. Plus, his BA is a paltry (unless you compare it to Sexson's) .236. The Mariners were idiots to sign Beltre to the deal they cut him (he's making more than $13 million this year, which is a bargain when you consider Sexson's contract is north of $15 million this year). They should have seen 2004 for what it was, an aberration. Beltre had never hit more than 23 HR's previously and his previous high BA was .290. So, his numbers as a Mariner are in line with his numbers as a Dodger if you get rid of 2004. The problem is that the Mariners are paying him to be the 2004 Beltre. For whatever reason, he's not that guy. But, don't blame Adrian, blame the Mariners' overeager management on that one.

Ichiro, Betancourt, and Lopez are hitting in the .289-.305 range. But, Lopez and Betancourt have a combined 10 walks on the season in almost 500 combined plate appearances. So, they aren't exactly leading the world in OBP; Lopez has an OBP of just .315 and Betancourt is at .305. Neither of those numbers is good. KC is 2nd to last in the AL in OBP (as a team - they are ahead of Seattle) at .312. The only other Mariner regular over .250 is Raul Ibanez at .261, which is 30-40 points below where he's usually at.

The Mariners don't have the worst pitching in the AL, nor do they have the worst offense in the AL. They're close to Detroit in the running for 2nd worst pitching (ahead of Texas) and right there with Baltimore for 2nd worst hitting (ahead of KC). But, Texas has been the best offensive team in the AL and Detroit is close to the top (1 R behind Minnesota for 3rd in runs scored). And, Baltimore is in the middle of the pack in pitching. KC's pitching hasn't exactly been stellar, but, the Royals have the 3rd worst record in MLB (ahead of Seattle and Colorado). But, KC doesn't have a payroll in excess of $100 million like Seattle either.

But, to get back to the point, I think Carlos Silva is wrong. While it's great to be a team and have all those intangibles, the individual Mariners haven't put up the stats this year. People aren't getting two hits a game ... that's why half their regulars are under the .240 mark. They don't have anyone tearing it up (unless you count Ichiro on the basepaths). Adrian Beltre has 13 HR's. But, I wouldn't consider 35 HR's a year tearing it up for a corner IF hitting .236. The Mariners barely have a chance when Hernandez and Bedard aren't starting, and some of their starts will be wasted because the offense is ... well ... offensive! Maybe, if the pitchers start racking up decent starts and guys get a couple hits, the wins will start rolling in.